Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dark_Grey

Hillary Clinton: Sociopath

178 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

questionmark

so we end concluding that there is no difference in character between Trump and Clinton? Who wudda thunk!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
supervike
10 hours ago, MissMelsWell said:

Neither of these choices are acceptable.

And, I refuse to waste a vote for a meaningless third party. I refuse to abstain from voting. That leaves me with a choice to make. Either pick a racist, misogynist, idiot, looser...  or pick the old establishment who's antics we've all seen before. At least the latter is predictable. The oompa loompa is the opposite of predictable.

If people stuck to their guns and actually voted their conscience, third parties WOULD NOT be meaningless.   It seems we all want to condemn the two party system, but never will see it through.  I am not voting for one of these two, I will vote third party.  My voice is not wasted, even if it's nothing more than a protest vote.  I cannot control how anyone else votes, but I am going to vote with what I feel is the BEST candidate, not the lesser of two evils.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
14 hours ago, questionmark said:

so we end concluding that there is no difference in character between Trump and Clinton? Who wudda thunk!

Other than that Clinton is a murderer, which is something of a big difference in my mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
8 minutes ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

Other than that Clinton is a murderer, which is something of a big difference in my mind.

Convicted in what? Your court of public opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dumbledore the Awesome
33 minutes ago, Likely Guy said:

Convicted in what? Your court of public opinion?

Holy cow, are you trying to be obtuse?

You know about Libya, do you? the way she egged on Obama? rejoicing in glee when Gadaffi was murdered? Her hands being on everything the State Department royally ******ed up, including Syria as well? I can't believe you can even begin to consider defending this monster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
1 hour ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

Holy cow, are you trying to be obtuse?

You know about Libya, do you? the way she egged on Obama? rejoicing in glee when Gadaffi was murdered? Her hands being on everything the State Department royally ******ed up, including Syria as well? I can't believe you can even begin to consider defending this monster.

Come on Otto, no one died in the Libya Arab Spring.... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)

Or, maybe a few did. Maybe tens of thousands. But, certainly not enough that Hillary couldn't laugh it off.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy
18 hours ago, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

Holy cow, are you trying to be obtuse?

You know about Libya, do you? the way she egged on Obama? rejoicing in glee when Gadaffi was murdered? Her hands being on everything the State Department royally ******ed up, including Syria as well? I can't believe you can even begin to consider defending this monster.

No, I'm being acute.

I'm just glad that you have a thread that you can run rabid on.

Edited by Likely Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa

Any sensible person no matter whether they call themselves a liberal or a conservative has got to be a little concerned about our prospects right about now.  Democrats will fall in with HRK if they are afraid of the Donald or not vote.  It doesn't seem likely the Republicans will be able to mount a viable alternative. People are saying one is better than the other, but it seems like choosing between cancer and a heart attack.  If we need a business man to run the country I would nominate Warren Buffet.  He is a lot smarter and has made a lot more money than Mr. Trump. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likely Guy

Buffet 2016!

Oh, wait. I was thinking about Jimmy.

Edit: Joe Walsh would have made a great president.

Edited by Likely Guy
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Yeah, as some have said here and in other places on UM, we NEED a FORMAL, PERMANENT third-party.

A third-party that is recognized by Constitutional law, general politics and the peoples as being needful to help buffer this crap that Dem's and Rep's do to each other.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
4 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Buffet 2016!

Oh, wait. I was thinking about Jimmy.

Edit: Joe Walsh would have made a great president.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
3 hours ago, pallidin said:

Yeah, as some have said here and in other places on UM, we NEED a FORMAL, PERMANENT third-party.

A third-party that is recognized by Constitutional law, general politics and the peoples as being needful to help buffer this crap that Dem's and Rep's do to each other.

That would have several advantages, and one would be that the legislative would not block itself in a fit of fanaticism, as seen over the last 4-6 years. They always would have to compromise.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
darkmoonlady

And of course her worst crime, having a uterus. Her list of supposed crimes is nothing every other politician is capable of and does happily but for being male well they can do as they want. If she were a shining angel of purity you would be here decrying her inability to lead because she is a soft woman. That she knows how to play dirty in a dirty business would be palatable if she were the right gender but since she isn't of course she is "the devil". Her gender, Obama's race, they are never really the issue except when you fundamentally and not very deep down despise them for their not being white men. The level of corruption any one candidate possesses seems to be multiplied exponentially by their non white non male quotient. I mean feel free to hate her on principle for her political psychopathy you will anyway but in the final analysis the vitriol she gets is not the same as white male candidate, and can be clearly demonstrated by Trump winning the Republican nomination.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Well, there you go.

anyone who doesn't approve of Clinton is sexist.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
19 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, there you go.

anyone who doesn't approve of Clinton is sexist.

Yeah seriously,what the hell was that?!...

The "discrimination proclamation"...

Thats like reading a indoctrinated rant from Ella's exact opposite lol

I think they both need to lay the glue down...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, there you go.

anyone who doesn't approve of Clinton is sexist.

While that is not the case, when looking at it Clinton suffers from the problem all women do: They have to be twice as good as a male to be accepted as equal.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Well, there you go.

anyone who doesn't approve of Clinton is sexist.

 

1 hour ago, CrimsonKing said:

Yeah seriously,what the hell was that?!...

The "discrimination proclamation"...

Thats like reading a indoctrinated rant from Ella's exact opposite lol

I think they both need to lay the glue down...

Darkmoonlady has a point, just look at the comment a few posts above - "Clinton is a murderer."

If we accept that what Clinton did is the criteria necessary to be labelled a "murderer", then how many other US political figures have also been "murderers"? And how many of them are male, are just as "guilty" as Clinton, yet receive nothing like the level of vitriol that is directed towards her?

So, apart from Clinton having the misfortune to be born a woman, what is the difference between those political figures?

To add: I dislike Clinton because she represents the corruption in politics, and of a political system, that I despise. But in that regard, I dislike her no more or less than many other political figures both present and past.

Edited by Leonardo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing

Not much Leo,but i must add that i dislike about 95% of our career politicians equally and have made my opinions clear in the past!

When i read someone stating the reason so and so doesn't like said persons candidate is not for said reasons but a hidden sinister reason,i laugh and call BS!!!

I very much dislike Clinton because she is very much the same creepy,lieing,scumbag as the rest!

She recieves no additions or subtractions because she is a woman in my book...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14
3 hours ago, Leonardo said:

 

Darkmoonlady has a point, just look at the comment a few posts above - "Clinton is a murderer."

If we accept that what Clinton did is the criteria necessary to be labelled a "murderer", then how many other US political figures have also been "murderers"? And how many of them are male, are just as "guilty" as Clinton, yet receive nothing like the level of vitriol that is directed towards her?

So, apart from Clinton having the misfortune to be born a woman, what is the difference between those political figures?

To add: I dislike Clinton because she represents the corruption in politics, and of a political system, that I despise. But in that regard, I dislike her no more or less than many other political figures both present and past.

The Clintons are the most corrupt two people to have ever sat in or run for president.  If elected we will have put a felon in the White House.  The Clinton Foundation is noting more than a slush fund paid for by selling favors and influence from the highest offices in the land.   When the FBI come for he the recommendation for criminal indictment will be for public corruption on a massive scale.  The uranium to Russia deal and the Laureate college scandal would be enough to land anyone else in jail for years (see Governor McDonnell looking at years in jail for almost nothing) and those to multi-million dollar scandals are just the tip of the iceberg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
1 hour ago, Merc14 said:

The Clintons are the most corrupt two people to have ever sat in or run for president.  If elected we will have put a felon in the White House.  The Clinton Foundation is noting more than a slush fund paid for by selling favors and influence from the highest offices in the land.   When the FBI come for he the recommendation for criminal indictment will be for public corruption on a massive scale.  The uranium to Russia deal and the Laureate college scandal would be enough to land anyone else in jail for years (see Governor McDonnell looking at years in jail for almost nothing) and those to multi-million dollar scandals are just the tip of the iceberg

 

What felony has Hillary Clinton been convicted of?

She, yes is suspected of doing wrong and even of committing criminal acts. Until she has been found guilty in a court, however, she is not a felon. As for the Clintons being "the most corrupt", that is a matter of speculation, not fact. The Bush family have also been rumoured to have engaged in many dubious deals. What makes them "less corrupt" than the Clintons?

Or is it that the Clintons sit on the other side of a political/ideological divide than you, so you naturally feel you have to "hate them more" due to this partisanship?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Again, I don't like the woman, and will likely write in, but snopes has also dealt with "exhibit A." No one ever mentions that she asked to be removed from the case, or that she was laughing about the validity of polygraphs and not the rape. I also love the way Coulter claims that no lawyer ever defends criminals. Only all of them. That's the whole point. Everyone gets their day in court and are innocent until proven guilty, and no matter how horrendous the case, everyone is entitled to a lawyer and that lawyer is supposed to do their best to defend the person.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi4jpHhu6DNAhVGLVIKHaaADyAQFggkMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.snopes.com%2Fhillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it%2F&usg=AFQjCNHhYzwdeIrJSe3oOm-LB42gOHt0Cg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2016 at 3:03 PM, Otto von Pickelhaube said:

Yes, but the trouble is, as I keep saying, as long as H. Clinton gets more votes than anyone else, she'd still get the job, no matter how many people may write in a 3rd party. And i really can't see it's ever likely to happen that enough people would have enough awareness and enough of a conscience to write in someone else rather than Clitnon, who cares about, as we know, Women, and doesn't hate Mexicans.

no one hates Mexicans.  what we hate is criminals crossing our border.  and people like Hilary who want illegal votes and doesn't care about the illegals crossing our borders.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

As for Gaddafi, the right's hero Reagan tried to kill the guy back in '86, but now they're mourning him? Oh how terrible Hillary laughed that the guy the US has been trying to kill for decades is dead. 

Edited by ChaosRose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
questionmark
1 minute ago, ChaosRose said:

As for Gaddafi, the right's hero Reagan tried to kill the guy back in '86, but now they're mourning him? Oh how terrible Hillary laughed that the guy the US has been trying to kill for decades is dead. 

And Trump was not against the thingy either, in fact he said at the time that "something had to be done about the guy".

If it would have gone well everybody would claim the idea as their own.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.